BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1914

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.
- NOTE: After 1915, voters may only vote for between 0-10 candidates.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot, with an exception for first-year eligible players, who will need at least 1 vote to appear on the next ballot.

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 Major League seasons . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 ABs or 1500 IP. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.


1914 Guide
There are 36 candidates on the 1914 ballot; 25 holdovers and 11 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1909 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (11)
Frank Bowerman
George Davis
Bill Dinneen
Hobe Ferris – 3000 AB Rule
Chick Fraser
Frank Isbell
Hughie Jennings – Age Rule
Jack O’Connor – Age Rule
Al Orth
Claude Ritchey
Jimmy Williams

Holdovers (25)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Jake Beckley 3rd 73.91% 73.91% (1913)
Cupid Childs 9th 56.52% 56.52% (1913)
Larry Corcoran 14th 13.04% 18.18% (1909)
Lave Cross 3rd 26.09% 30.43% (1912)
Hugh Duffy 4th 60.87% 65.22% (1912)
Kid Gleason 2nd 4.35% 4.35% (1913)
Charley Jones 14th 34.78% 34.78% (1913)
Fielder Jones 2nd 8.70% 8.70% (1913)
Joe Kelley 2nd 47.83% 47.83% (1913)
Herman Long 6th 56.52% 56.52% (1913)
Bobby Lowe 3rd 8.70% 9.09% (1913)
Jim McCormick 14th 30.43% 40.00% (1910)
John McGraw 3rd 39.13% 47.83% (1912)
Deacon McGuire 2nd 4.35% 4.35% (1913)
Cal McVey 14th 39.13% 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 14th 47.83% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 14th 69.57% 69.57% (1913)
Jimmy Ryan 7th 47.83% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 14th 69.57% 73.91% (1912)
Joe Start 14th 47.83% 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton 14th 56.52% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 10th 21.74% 22.73% (1913)
George Van Haltren 7th 65.22% 69.57% (1912)
John Warner 2nd 4.35% 4.35% (1913)
Mickey Welch 14th 34.78% 52.00% (1910)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (8)
Player 1912 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Jake Beckley 73.91% 2
Hardy Richardson 69.57% 10
Al Spalding 69.57% 9
George Van Haltren 65.22% 6
Hugh Duffy 60.87% 3
Cupid Childs 56.52% 4
Herman Long 56.52% 2
Ezra Sutton 56.52% 7

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Jake Beckley 73.91% (1913) 1
Al Spalding 73.91% (1912) 3
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 2
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 2

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Tommy Corcoran Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1912)
Noodles Hahn Lack of Support 3 13.04% (1912)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (10)
Player High Support
Larry Corcoran 18.18% (1909)
Charley Jones 32.00% (1910, 1911)
Jim McCormick 40.00% (1910)
Cal McVey 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1913)
Al Spalding 73.91% (1912)
Joe Start 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton 62.50% (1905)
Mickey Welch 52.00% (1910)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (31)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1871-1897 27
Ross Barnes 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (AL) 1895-1908 14
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1879-1892 14
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1878-1893 16
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (3): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Deacon White
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (2): Ross Barnes, Bid McPhee
Third Base (1): Jimmy Collins
Shortstop (3): Jack Glasscock, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (4): Jesse Burkett, Ed Delahanty, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (4): Pete Browning, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (9): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White
1905 (1): Bid McPhee
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols
1912 (0):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity

First Balloters (15)
Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
John Clarkson 1901
Jimmy Collins 1913
Roger Conner 1902
Ed Delahanty 1908
Buck Ewing 1902
Billy Hamilton 1906
Tim Keefe 1901
Jim O’Rourke 1901
Joe McGinnity 1913
Kid Nichols 1911
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906


Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 15
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 8
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 11 – Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.39
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 7
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Buffalo Bisons, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings) - 3
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Ross Barnes – 9 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.29 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Jake Beckley, Al Spalding – 73.91%

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)

[henrich]

1B Beckley
SS Davis
3B Cross
CF Duffy
CF Ryan
CF Van Haltren
SP Welch
SP McCormick

[Freakshow]

Collins and McGinnity are replaced by Davis and Jennings.

Beckley
Childs
G. Davis
Duffy
Jennings
C. Jones
J. Kelley
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[jalbright]

Childs
G. Davis
Duffy
Kelley
Long
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[KCGHOST]

Beckley
Childs
Davis
Duffy
J. Kelley
McGraw
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

Here is a preliminary ballot. I have not voted yet and I expected to vote also for one or more of Joe Kelley and Co.

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
George Davis
Hughie Jennings
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

[leecemark]

George Davis, SS (1890-1909) - 1st Year 5 83.33%
Hughie Jennings, SS (1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912) - 1st Year 3 50.00%
Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 6th Year 3 50.00%
John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 4th Year 3 50.00%
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) - 14th Year 2 33.33%
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892) - 14th Year 4 66.67%
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 14th Year 5 83.33%
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 14th Year 3 50.00%


--Two chances left for Al Spaulding. I'd really like to see him make it as a regular selection instead of sliding to the VC.
--George Davis is an easy addition to my ballot. Jennings a little less so, but until we get a little better infield/outfield balance my standards will be more lenient for infielders. Jennings did have one heck of a peak.
--Long, McGraw and Richardson return to my ballot, although I'm really onthe fence with all three. A good argument against could bump them by next year (well probably not Hardy, since it will be his last chance). McGraw may be best served as a VC candidate and the sooner he drops off the regular ballot the sooner he can be considered there.
--McVey and Sutton have been on my ballot a long time and I'll stick with them 2 more until their eligibility runs out. Neither seems very likely to make a late run though. Collins just squeaking in last year does not bode well for Ezra and McVey is just too far away to close the gap.

[jjpm74]

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
George Davis
Bill Dinneen
Hughie Jennings
Charley Jones
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Gone from my ballot:

Lave Cross
Herman Long

Going next year unless someone convinces me otherwise:

Cupid Childs
Bill Dinneen
Hughie Jennings

There's a whole bunch of outfielders bunched together in career value and in votes. Does anyone want to weigh in on why I should vote for Duffy/Ryan/VanHaltren/J.Kelley/Tiernen?

[dgarza]

Jake Beckley
Larry Corcoran
George Davis
Hugh Duffy
Charley Jones
Joe Kelley
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch


1. Al Spalding
2. Hugh Duffy
3. Jim McCormick
4. Mickey Welch
5. Cal McVey
6. George Davis
7. George Van Haltren
8. Jake Beckley
9. Joe Kelley
10. Hardy Richardson
11. Lip Pike
12. Jimmy Ryan
13. Mike Tiernan
14. Charley Jones
15. Larry Corcoran

[PVNICK]

Beckley
Childs
Cross
Davis
Long
McGraw
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Welch

I only added George Davis. Duffy seems like a good player with one out of hand season so I can't see voting for him. Though how back in 1914 would they have felt about not having the man with the highest single season batting average out of the "Hall" I cannot say.

[DoubleX]

Jake Beckley - Despite coming just minutes away from election last time, I'm really not optimistic for his election any time soon.

George Davis - Clearly best SS thus far.

Joe Kelley - I'm on the fence with him and could drop him in any year.

Jim McCormick

Cal McVey - He deserves better.

Hardy Richardson - He's been so close for so long but there's been very little talk about him. Perhaps with 2 years left, it's time?

Jimmy Ryan - Still don't get why Duffy and Van Haltren are so far ahead when Ryan was arguably the best of the 3.

Joe Start - He made great progress in 1912, only to take a big step back last year.

Ezra Sutton - Should have been elected years ago. It's pretty disgraceful that in a 40 year period of baseball history, we have just 1 3Bman.

Mike Tiernan - I've been on the fence with him for a long time and I suppose I keep voting for him because I've been too lazy to reexamine again (I did once, and that resulted in me voting for him, but I've felt like I should do it again).

George Van Haltren - I have a feeling he'll make it one day.

Mickey Welch - I promised I wouldn't say anything else.

Jimmy Williams - I don't necessarily support him, but I thought he deserved a second look. He's similar to Ed McKean, IMO, who didn't deserve to be dropped by us especially given our emphasis on offense.

Just a reminder everyone, after next year, we'll likely be going to 10 votes. I think it's easy to justify this because we'll be losing the last 10 of the original players, so ballots will likely be between 20-25 players in many years. Doesn't seem to make sense to potentially be voting for 2/3 of the ballot.

[leecemark]

--I still don't understand why Van Haltren has emerged as the favorite from a pack of similar outfielders. He is no better than Ryan or Duffy or Tiernan or Kelley. Well maybe better than Tiernan, but not as good as Kelley. Either I'm missing something or he is a guy who is going to set the bar low enough to make every pretty good outfielder who hits the ballot looks like a Hall of Famer.

[DoubleX]

--I still don't understand why Van Haltren has emerged as the favorite from a pack of similar outfielders. He is no better than Ryan or Duffy or Tiernan or Kelley. Well maybe better than Tiernan, but not as good as Kelley. Either I'm missing something or he is a guy who is going to set the bar low enough to make every pretty good outfielder who hits the ballot looks like a Hall of Famer.

Even though I'm voting for him, I don't understand it either. His name is pretty cool which might subliminally be affecting people. However, I think he's part of my theory that we seem to over-support those guys on the outside of the actual Hall that we consider as among the better players outside, while we under-support those guys on the inside of the actual Hall that we consider as among the lower players on the inside. This is why I think Mickey Welch is interesting. He's a lower player on the inside, and I think that subconsciously has affected some of his voting, but when he's not elected, I think in a hypothetical future where people like us are debating on web boards, he'd transform into one of those players that's talked about a lot as an omission, and I think just because of that, he would then get more support if those hypothetical people in that hypothetical future conducted a hypothetical project like this, hypothetically. :)

As for applying the theory to Haltren, remember the Suburbs project you conducted - Haltren was a very early pick if memory serves. So there is just a general perception out there that he's among the better players outside, and I think we subconsciously overcompensate when given a chance for those players.

Look at Bert Blyleven, he will probably be a 1st balloter here, and many us will be drooling at having the opportunity to vote for Blyleven, as if for just a moment we can right some great wrong. But assuming a 1st ballot election is a special honor, if we look at things objectively, is Blyleven really on that level? Hall of Famer, yes. Elite, no. So basically I believe with certain players, namely the best on the outside and the worst on the inside, we're unable to be objective.

[leecemark]

--I agree that is the case. Maybe its the main difference between Welch and Mullane. Doesn't explain the disparity between VanHaltren and Ryan though. They are extremely similar, but GVH looks to have a strong chance at election, while Ryan appears to have very little chance. Maybe it is just the catchy name for one and the broign one for the other:noidea. I'd like to think we are better than that though.
--As for first ballot that is only a factor for me if I already have a full ballot - which has not been the case for several years for me. I won't bump someone for a borderline candidate, even if the new guy is marginally better than someone at the bottom of my ballot. If I have room though I'll vote for a guy a believe is just barely a Hall of Famer the first time up, same as an inner circle guy. McGinnity, for example, I see as a lower level Hall of Famer, but the space was available on my ballot when he came up. I was surprised when he stayed at 100% so long, but don't see that or his first ballot status as particularly noteworthy.

[DoubleX]

--I agree that is the case. Maybe its the main difference between Welch and Mullane. Doesn't explain the disparity between VanHaltren and Ryan though. They are extremely similar, but GVH looks to have a strong chance at election, while Ryan appears to have very little chance. Maybe it is just the catchy name for one and the broign one for the other:noidea. I'd like to think we are better than that though.
--As for first ballot that is only a factor for me if I already have a full ballot - which has not been the case for several years for me. I won't bump someone for a borderline candidate, even if the new guy is marginally better than someone at the bottom of my ballot. If I have room though I'll vote for a guy a believe is just barely a Hall of Famer the first time up, same as an inner circle guy. McGinnity, for example, I see as a lower level Hall of Famer, but the space was available on my ballot when he came up. I was surprised when he stayed at 100% so long, but don't see that or his first ballot status as particularly noteworthy.

I don't get why Ryan is lacking so much in comparison either, and I'm actually surprised that Duffy is getting such strong support given that he is one of those weaker real Hall players. I would really love to hear from people though that are voting for Van Haltren but not Ryan. The two are really close together and I think Ryan has very good arguments for being better.

I don't vote based on which ballot I feel a player should be elected either, but I think as a consensus we do set some standards for whether a player is a 1st balloter or not. Given that less than 50% of our electees have been elected on the 1st ballot, it doe seems to be something of an honor.

Anyway, I do feel that a lack of objectivity is something of a problem here, and it's something that probably can't be overcome. I'm just hoping people are doing their best to put a player into the context of their era and the history of the game up to that time, while ignoring what they know about the real Hall and the next 90 years or so of baseball history. This doesn't mean that I don't want people using modern statistical evaluations, as such is helpful in the evaluation process, I just don't want people voting or not voting for people because they don't measure up to their 2008 standards. I want us to act like we're totally ignorant of everything that has yet to come in baseball, just as we're ignorant now of what the next 100 years will look like. Easier said than done though.

[Paul Wendt]

--I still don't understand why Van Haltren has emerged as the favorite from a pack of similar outfielders. He is no better than Ryan or Duffy or Tiernan or Kelley. Well maybe better than Tiernan, but not as good as Kelley. Either I'm missing something or he is a guy who is going to set the bar low enough to make every pretty good outfielder who hits the ballot looks like a Hall of Famer.
Van Haltren hasn't emerged, he was nearly elected as soon as eligible. He and Duffy and Kelley are in the BBFHOF.

GVH has sky-high career win shares, up there with Rusty Staub and Dwight Evans. The average schedule was 140 games during his career; he is up there thanks to three early seasons as a mediocre pitcher.

GVH, Ryan, and Duffy were strong contenders for several years over at the Hall of Merit but Ryan eventually dropped off the charts. Frequently a Van Haltren knocker and occasionally a Ryan supporter would ask why. Ryan put up most of his best seasons earlier, during the AA era. During his thirties he approached closer to mediocre than Van Haltren ever did as a batter/runner. Ryan left centerfield; so did Duffy. But they played beside Bill Lange and Billy Hamilton. Bill James grades them B+ and A+ despite the time in left and grades Van Haltren only B, which is below average to poor in center.

[Brooklyn]

Beckley, Davis, Spalding and Welch

I've been voting for Spalding and Welch since the beginning of this project. I'd like to see them get over the hump. I have hopes for Spalding, but almost no hoep for Welch.

Welch - when we started this project in 1901, Welch was 6th all-time in wins. 3rd all-time in shutouts. 4th all-time in strikeouts. 4th all-time in innings pitched. 3rd in complete games. I find it hard to believe that someone making a decision at that point in time would have left him out.

Today (1914) he is 8th all-time in wins. 15th all-time in shutouts. 9th all-time in strikeouts. 6th all-time in innings pitched. 5th in complete games. he's slipped a little, but with 14 more years of players, his counting totals still hold up. And he played a lot of his career with shorter seasons.

I know people are not a big fan of the wins stat, but back then players finished their games (Welch finished 95.6% of the games he started), so the wins stat meant more than it does in the 21st century. I just can't ignore a guy with 307 wins over essentially 11 seasons, including a 44 win season and 3 more 30+ win season

Spalding - with that pitching peak, I can't ingore him, even if his career was quite a bit shorter than I'd like.

[jjpm74]

I only added George Davis. Duffy seems like a good player with one out of hand season so I can't see voting for him. Though how back in 1914 would they have felt about not having the man with the highest single season batting average out of the "Hall" I cannot say.

Duffy's offensive explosion came in 1893-1895. In 1893, the pitching mound moved back to its modern distance and many pitchers struggled with the new distance. Duffy's batting average ballooned during those 1st three years. Outside of that 3 year offensive explosion, he was an average ball player. I have no idea why he is getting so much support around here. Duffy is the weakest candidate of the Duffy/Ryan/VanHaltren/J.Kelley/Tiernen set. He'll have to get in without my support.

[leecemark]

GVH has sky-high career win shares, up there with Rusty Staub and Dwight Evans. The average schedule was 140 games during his career; he is up there thanks to three early seasons as a mediocre pitcher.



--Right up there with Rusty Staub and Dwight Evans? That doesn't exactly scream Hall of Famer to me.

[DoubleX]

Duffy's offensive explosion came in 1893-1895. In 1893, the pitching mound moved back to its modern distance and many pitchers struggled with the new distance. Duffy's batting average ballooned during those 1st three years. Outside of that 3 year offensive explosion, he was an average ball player. I have no idea why he is getting so much support around here. Duffy is the weakest candidate of the Duffy/Ryan/VanHaltren/J.Kelley/Tiernen set. He'll have to get in without my support.

Duffy also played less than 40% of his games in CF, which, IMO should be a huge knock against him when comparing him to Van Haltren and Ryan, who both spent significantly more time in CF. Duffy also had the shortest career and the least impressive counting numbers of the three. IMO, he's clearly the third of the group. Of those three, it's worth noting that Ryan, by a hair, has the highest OPS+, and in the most PAs.

[Paul Wendt]

Here the honored players are listed by fielding position, then order of election.
LF CF RF
O'Rourke Hines Kelly -c
Stovey -1b Hamilton Thompson
Delahanty Browning -lf
Burkett Gore

3B SS 2B 1B
Collins Ward -p-o-2 McPhee Anson
Wright Barnes Brouthers
Glasscock Connor
P
Clarkson
Keefe
Radbourn
Galvin
Rusie C
Mullane Ewing
Caruthers -of White -3b
Nichols Bennett
McGinnity
The markup puts them in rough chronological classes: first bold, then plain, then underline. So the pitchers number 0 of 6 from the earliest class, 6 of 18 (7 of 18 with Ward), and 3 of 7.

Leading incumbents (50% support)
Spalding, p
Sutton, 3b
Richardson, 2b
Beckley, 1b
Childs, 2b
Duffy, cf
Long, ss
Van Haltren, cf

[DoubleX]

I feel like there should be more discussion about Hardy Richardson. He's reached as high as approximately 70%, twice topping the 2/3 mark, 10 times topping 50%, so he's been consistently up there, but there has been very little discussion about him. With just 1 year left on the ballot after this, I do feel that a good discussion about Richardson could make a difference.

[leecemark]

--He is a borderline case for me, only making my ballot during the outfield/infield imbalance debates of a few years ago. I'm supporitng him still, but not enough to be his champion. Apparently you are either as you're calling for someone else to make the case:cap:. Anybody feel strongly enough about old "True Blue" to make him our special interest case these last 2 elections?

[DoubleX]

--He is a borderline case for me, only making my ballot during the outfield/infield imbalance debates of a few years ago. I'm supporitng him still, but not enough to be his champion. Apparently you are either as you're calling for someone else to make the case:cap:. Anybody feel strongly enough about old "True Blue" to make him our special interest case these last 2 elections?

You're right, I don't feel the fervor to be his champion. I think I make it pretty clear when I feel strongly about a player. :) I think a lot of us probably feel similarly about Richardson, kind "sure, why not." He's had such consistently strong support though that I feel like it's ashame that no one is trumpeting his cause because it could make the difference. I don't want to see him not elected simply because no one really made a case. He's gotten pretty far on silence.

[jjpm74]

--He is a borderline case for me, only making my ballot during the outfield/infield imbalance debates of a few years ago. I'm supporitng him still, but not enough to be his champion. Apparently you are either as you're calling for someone else to make the case:cap:. Anybody feel strongly enough about old "True Blue" to make him our special interest case these last 2 elections?

He's better than Childs. I don't know if that's championing him, though. :)

Here's AG2004's Keltner on him:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=995349&postcount=90

I think he's pretty much lukewarm for a lot of people. I don't see anyone championing his case. I could see someone championing the other 14 year guy who just missed election, however *cough* Spalding *cough*. :candle:

[dgarza]

I feel like there should be more discussion about Hardy Richardson. From a 2008 perspective, how does Richardson compare to Larry Doyle? While it's hard to call any 2 players exact, there seem to be a lot of similarities between the two.
I would think Richardson has the defensive upper hand.

[jjpm74]

Next year, we have an interesting figure coming onto the ballot in George Stone. (http://www.deadball.com/stone.htm) Stone was always a talented ball player who broke into professional baseball at 26 years old. He only played for in the majors 7 years because he felt that playing ball was costing him money. Stone eventually goes on to have a successful business career and ultimately ends up owning a minor league ball club. While he had a short career, had he broke into baseball at 18 and not left the game prematurely, he probably could have been one of the greats. Chalk him up as a Bill Lange type "what if".

Another with not much of a career but noteworthy is Ed Abbatichio. (http://www.thediamondangle.com/archive/aug01/abbaticchio.html) He is someone we'd normally cut, but given his noteworthiness and that he's over the minimum, I think we should keep him. The only guy who makes it on the AB/IP minimum that might not be worth keeping is Tom Jones.

These are the newcomers in next years pentultimate 1915 ballot:

Ed Abbatichio
Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Harry Howell
Tom Jones
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Ed Killian
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
George Stone
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

I only see 1 potential 1st balloter in the lot (Waddell). No doubt Joss, Leever and Willis will have their supporters. Beaumont and Flick may get a few votes as well. Someone may have a soft spot for Silent George. Otherwise, it'll be an interesting voting cycle given how many players will be in their last year of eligibility.

[Paul Wendt]

Both Flick and Willie Keeler will garner many votes. Considering Flick and Keeler may crystallize some opinion that helps sort Joe Kelley & Co.

It appears that Fred Clarke has finally retired from the field so he will be eligible at age 45. I take for granted that he will be welcomed by almost everyone here, as Jim O'Rourke in our first election. Later there will be Sam Crawford. But to me it is a wide open question whether anyone else who toiled in the gardens of the nineties and now the aughts will be a winner here.

[Paul Wendt]

From a 2008 perspective, how does Richardson compare to Larry Doyle? While it's hard to call any 2 players exact, there seem to be a lot of similarities between the two.
I would think Richardson has the defensive upper hand.
understt!

The Hall of Merit has elected 21 players who are not in Cooperstown, from the jurisdiction of the new old-timers committee that has yet to be appointed. That is players in parts of 10 major league seasons beginning before 1943. Richardson is one, elected more than a century ago. Doyle is not one.

In a special project this winter a smaller group, about 20 voters, ranked Richardson #9 among the 21. That is just ahead of Bob Caruthers, Charlie Bennett, Sherry Magee, Stan Hack, Joe Gordon.
I guess that Richardson is the one who gained most during the discussion; at the HOM that is two weeks before opening the polls. He gained mainly by reassessment or better publicized assessment of his fielding --probably a superior centerfielder, a B at thirdbase, an A at secondbase and leftfield (my summary).

In 1878 Hardy Richardson was a star in the International Association, one MVP candidate(*). He turned 24 in April 1879, before his major league debut --older than most (almost all?) of the great NL players of his time, say 1877-1891 debuts.
(*) one MVP candidate if a pitcher wouldn't routinely win it. Probably the most valuable players of the IA were the best of the ace pitchers.

[AG2004]

And finally, again the whole ERA+ thing has been bypassed. That's meant to put eras on the same plane. I'll say again - Welch's 10 year peak ERA+ is 122; McGinnity's entire 10 year career ERA+ is 120. No one wants to seem to address this.

That statement was from last year's debate, but I'll address the issue now.

McGinnity's peak was better than Welch's. McGinnity finished second among major league pitchers in win shares in 1899, first in 1900, first in 1903, and second in 1904. McGinnity recorded 42 win shares in 1904 to lead the NL, but the AL's Chesbro had a fluke season that year. McGinnity was also third among AL pitchers in win shares in 1901 and fourth among NL pitchers in 1906.

Welch was second in the NL in win shares in 1885 and third in 1889. Those were Welch's only finishes among his leagues' top three pitchers in win shares.

Between 1899 and 1904, McGinnity was a great pitcher, and he reached a level of greatness that Welch rarely approached. McGinnity had two bad years at the end of his major league career to pull down his lifetime ERA+, but he had a lot of great seasons before that decline. ERA+ is a rate stat, and thus fails to reflect quantity (something McGinnity had a lot of compared to his peers). Career rate stats also fail to reflect season-by-season achievements. With all those great years McGinnity had, he would have been more likely to lead your team to pennants than Welch would have, everything else being equal.

Career ERA+, or even ERA+ during a ten-year period, cannot tell the entire story. It is also important to look at season-by-season performance and number of appearances, and those considerations would put McGinnity far ahead of Welch.

[DoubleX]

Between 1899 and 1904, McGinnity was a great pitcher, and he reached a level of greatness that Welch rarely approached. McGinnity had two bad years at the end of his major league career to pull down his lifetime ERA+, but he had a lot of great seasons before that decline. ERA+ is a rate stat, and thus fails to reflect quantity (something McGinnity had a lot of compared to his peers). Career rate stats also fail to reflect season-by-season achievements. With all those great years McGinnity had, he would have been more likely to lead your team to pennants than Welch would have, everything else being equal.

I don't want to dwell on Welch's lost cause anymore, but I thought I already addressed this quantity thing. Yes, McGinnity led the league in IP during his career, but he was less than 1% ahead of the next guy (Cy Young), and about 20% ahead of the 6th guy. In comparison, if you take Welch's peak 10 or 11 years (I can't remember which I did), while he's behind the incomparable Pud Galvin, he was ahead of everyone else, including 5% ahead of the next guy and 25% ahead of the 6th guy. So McGinnity really wasn't standing out during his career like people think.

[DoubleX]

Next year, we have an interesting figure coming onto the ballot in George Stone. (http://www.deadball.com/stone.htm) Stone was always a talented ball player who broke into professional baseball at 26 years old. He only played for in the majors 7 years because he felt that playing ball was costing him money. Stone eventually goes on to have a successful business career and ultimately ends up owning a minor league ball club. While he had a short career, had he broke into baseball at 18 and not left the game prematurely, he probably could have been one of the greats. Chalk him up as a Bill Lange type "what if".

Another with not much of a career but noteworthy is Ed Abbatichio. (http://www.thediamondangle.com/archive/aug01/abbaticchio.html) He is someone we'd normally cut, but given his noteworthiness and that he's over the minimum, I think we should keep him. The only guy who makes it on the AB/IP minimum that might not be worth keeping is Tom Jones.

These are the newcomers in next years pentultimate 1915 ballot:

Ed Abbatichio
Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Harry Howell
Tom Jones
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Ed Killian
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
George Stone
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

I only see 1 potential 1st balloter in the lot (Waddell). No doubt Joss, Leever and Willis will have their supporters. Beaumont and Flick may get a few votes as well. Someone may have a soft spot for Silent George. Otherwise, it'll be an interesting voting cycle given how many players will be in their last year of eligibility.

Add Clark Griffith to that list as well. Next year will be perhaps the most interesting class of newcomers we've had since the first year. Just among pitchers, I think decent cases can be made for at least Waddell, Joss, Griffith, Willis, and Leever. Beaumont, Flick, and Keeler could all get decent to good support as well. Of the group, I imagine Waddell and Keeler will have the easiest times getting in, and I think Joss, Willis, Griffith, and Flick all have strong chances as well (Flick probably being the strongest).

[leecemark]

--I'm not sure "the incomparable" is an appropriate adjective for Pud Galvin. He did have the best longevity of his generation, but that is the only reason he got my vote. Being a poor man's Pud Galvin is a less than ringing endorsement IMO.

[leecemark]

Add Clark Griffith to that list as well. Next year will be perhaps the most interesting class of newcomers we've had since the first year. Just among pitchers, I think decent cases can be made for at least Waddell, Joss, Griffith, Willis, and Leever. Beaumont, Flick, and Keeler could all get decent to good support as well. Of the group, I imagine Waddell and Keeler will have the easiest times getting in, and I think Joss, Willis, Griffith, and Flick all have strong chances as well (Flick probably being the strongest).


--Good thing the 15 man ballot will still be in effect for one more year. I expect I'll have more than 10 guys I see as worthy. Spaulding is numero uno on my ballot this yera and still will be next year if he is still outside looking in. Griffith is the most deserving amoung the newcomers for m. Waddell, and Flick should be on my ballot to. Keeler and Willis will get a full examination. Joss and Leever come up short. I'd be surprised if Joss gets elected. We're down to the bottom of the barrell in the BBFHoF and he still isn't getting much support there. Great rates stats only go so far. Joss was an early version of Jose Rijo.

[philkid3]

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
George Davis
Hugh Duffy
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernen
Mickey Welch


By the way, this might be my favorite B-F project that I've been around for most of so far.

[DoubleX]

--Good thing the 15 man ballot will still be in effect for one more year. I expect I'll have more than 10 guys I see as worthy. Spaulding is numero uno on my ballot this yera and still will be next year if he is still outside looking in. Griffith is the most deserving amoung the newcomers for m. Waddell, and Flick should be on my ballot to. Keeler and Willis will get a full examination. Joss and Leever come up short. I'd be surprised if Joss gets elected. We're down to the bottom of the barrell in the BBFHoF and he still isn't getting much support there. Great rates stats only go so far. Joss was an early version of Jose Rijo.

First, in respect to Galvin being "incomparable" I meant it only in reference to IP. During his 10 or 11 year peak, only Galvin was more of a workhorse than Welch, and there's no shame in that, and Welch had pretty good separation from everyone else. Of course it's arbitrary to just pick any 10 or 11 year period, but I think I did so in response to a comment that Freakshow made in the last thread. Anyway, I really don't want to talk about Welch anymore.

I'm not 100% on reducing the ballot to 10 and I could be persuaded not to, but no one has really objected. I don't mind keeping it at 15 but the purpose of originally having 15 was to accommodate the many players eligible in the original election. With the last of them dropping off after next year, didn't see to be as necessary. Plus, this might bring back strategic voting which can add another level to this, but anyone feel free to share what you think. If there is sentiment out there to remain at 15, we'll do so. I will say thought that I am no open to a gradual reduction. It's either we use 1915 as an apt time to reduce to 10 or we don't.

I'm going to have some tough choices next year as well. Waddell, Flick, and Keeler will all likely be on my ballot. I'm starting to open up to Griffith. Willis and Joss I'm on the fence with but I can see voting for both. Beaumont is on the other side of the fence as is Leever, though he has a better case than I thought he did.

[jjpm74]

I'm not 100% on reducing the ballot to 10 and I could be persuaded not to, but no one has really objected. I don't mind keeping it at 15 but the purpose of originally having 15 was to accommodate the many players eligible in the original election. With the last of them dropping off after next year, didn't see to be as necessary. Plus, this might bring back strategic voting which can add another level to this, but anyone feel free to share what you think. If there is sentiment out there to remain at 15, we'll do so. I will say thought that I am no open to a gradual reduction. It's either we use 1915 as an apt time to reduce to 10 or we don't.


I'd honestly like to keep it at 15 for now. What if we revisit the 15 vote ballot every 5 years to see if there's any reason to keep it at 15? IMO as of 1916 there will still be enough serious viable candidates on the ballot to keep it at 15 at least until 1920. I also think that by allowing the ballots to remain at 15, you keep it open for us to save some candidates from one and done status and that sometimes that can lead to a candidate gaining some momentum and spark discussion (look at Charley Jones and Mike Tiernan as some examples).

[philkid3]

I personally think dropping to 10 soon is a good idea. At some point, it will help establish a little more prestige to players by making it harder to get in on early ballots, and I don't think we're far from having enough years for a player to eventually get in if he deserves it with only 10.

[philkid3]

If my math is correct, ten ballots have been posted and four of us used all 15 spots. To me, that's a pretty good indication we can go down to 10 pretty quickly, because we're not being pressed to fill an entire ballot.

[jjpm74]

I personally think dropping to 10 soon is a good idea. At some point, it will help establish a little more prestige to players by making it harder to get in on early ballots, and I don't think we're far from having enough years for a player to eventually get in if he deserves it with only 10.

That or it could result in total stagnation and a premature end to this project as we enter into the dreaded deadball era.

What harm is there in sticking with the 15 person ballot? If most aren't posting 15 candidates, so what? If most people start posting 5 person ballots should we all of a sudden go with a 5 person ballot?

[philkid3]

That or it could result in total stagnation and a premature end to this project as we enter into the dreaded deadball era.

What harm is there in sticking with the 15 person ballot? If most aren't posting 15 candidates, so what? If most people start posting 5 person ballots should we all of a sudden go with a 5 person ballot?

I personally think you have to put a little less thought in it the larger the ballot, and it also could lead to more boring classes down the road as there are fewer hold overs. A large part of this, to me, is supposed to be fun.

If it comes to the point that a lot of people are only putting down five or so at a time, I don't see a problem at all with a five person ballot, but we're not to that point.

[jjpm74]

I personally think you have to put a little less thought in it the larger the ballot, and it also could lead to more boring classes down the road as there are fewer hold overs. A large part of this, to me, is supposed to be fun.

If it comes to the point that a lot of people are only putting down five or so at a time, I don't see a problem at all with a five person ballot, but we're not to that point.

I completely disagree. I carefully research all the candidates I vote for and enjoy the discussions some of the fringe guys generate. I want to be able to enter a ballot that contains all the candidates I support. If I have to leave candidates I support off the ballot, I may be inclined to not cast a ballot even if by casting an incomplete ballot it means some candidates get elected. This is supposed to be fun for everyone involved. Take away the ability to carry over a few fringe candidates and the potential to discuss them in a future election (also look at Noodles Hahn and his discussions in the last election) and you're basically turning this into another boring "let's pick some boxes and run away" project.

[Freakshow]

I feel like there should be more discussion about Hardy Richardson. He's reached as high as approximately 70%, twice topping the 2/3 mark, 10 times topping 50%, so he's been consistently up there, but there has been very little discussion about him. With just 1 year left on the ballot after this, I do feel that a good discussion about Richardson could make a difference.
Cowtipper posted a poll on Hardy Richardson (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1053612)last fall. There is some interesting discussion there. I contributed a little time to to making a case for Hardy. Most compelling was this:

I'll refer you to the early discussion threads in the Hall of Merit (http://web.archive.org/web/20030728125311/www.baseballprimer.com/hom/archives/00000070.shtml) at Baseballthinkfactory.com. They've given Richardson's case the most thorough scrutiny that you will find on the internet, AFAIK. He was elected by them in 1905, along with Charley Radbourn. Fourteen players on that ballot were elected to the HoM after Richardson: Al Spalding, Ezra Sutton, Pud Galvin, Joe Start, Bid McPhee, Cal McVey, Harry Stovey, Charlie Bennett, Sam Thompson, Bob Caruthers, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Pete Browning, and Charley Jones.

One poster was opining that such 2B as Del Pratt, Buddy Myer and Frank White :eek: should go in the Hall before Richardson. We had a little back and forth; when he raised BB-Ref's neutralized stats as evidence against Hardy, I saw that we were on different planets as to what should be regarded as evidence, and I bailed on that discussion.

[philkid3]

I must seriously be overrating Hughie Jennings. He seems no-brainer to me.

[Paul Wendt]

if you take Welch's peak 10 or 11 years (I can't remember which I did), while he's behind the incomparable Pud Galvin, he was ahead of everyone else, including 5% ahead of the next guy and 25% ahead of the 6th guy.
That may be 1880-1889, the 1880s.

In Welch's time there weren't many pitchers in the league, so the number who share a 10-year span may be tiny. For the 1880s, the top three in starts and innings were Galvin-Welch-Keefe in that order but they were the only three who pitched both in 1880 and in 1889. And Keefe debuted only during 1880 as the substitute pitcher on Welch's own team.

For McGinnity 1899-1904 --the six-year peak(?) that AG mentioned-- the top 16 pitchers by starts or innings were all active both in 1899 and in 1904. Pittenger and Mathewson, #17 and #18, debuted in 1900.

For McGinnity 1899-1908 --ten years, his entire career-- the top 10 pitchers include Mathewson with that 1900 debut and nine guys who were active both in 1899 and in 1908. Go down to the top 20 and pick up six more who were active at both endpoints, total 15 of the top 20. During those ten seasons McGinnity's margin over #6 is 22% in starts and 26% in wins.

During 1880-1889, Welch's (#2) margin over #6 is about 26% in starts, 24% in innings. But #6 Whitney and #4 Radbourn didn't pitch at all in 1881 and #5 McCormick didn't pitch at all in 1888 or 1889.

[Paul Wendt]

If my math is correct, ten ballots have been posted and four of us used all 15 spots. To me, that's a pretty good indication we can go down to 10 pretty quickly, because we're not being pressed to fill an entire ballot.
Huh??
In your example that would delete about 15% of all votes cast!

[philkid3]

Huh??
In your example that would delete about 15% of all votes cast!

Why have any limit at all?

[Paul Wendt]

Why have any limit at all?
In order to experience the frustration of the early BBWAA elections. In order to simulate that process closely we would have limited to ten from the start.
--but without making players ineligible --but that would be difficult or impossible to automate here

[Paul Wendt]

I feel like there should be more discussion about Hardy Richardson. He's reached as high as approximately 70%, twice topping the 2/3 mark, 10 times topping 50%, so he's been consistently up there, but there has been very little discussion about him. With just 1 year left on the ballot after this, I do feel that a good discussion about Richardson could make a difference.
Freakshow referred to early discussion of Hardy Richardson at the Hall of Merit (early, when Richardson was discussed as a candidate and elected).

The Hall of Merit "caught up with the present" annual cycles in December; the next election of HOM members will be this fall. In three-week cycles this year the participants have ranked the HOM members who are not in the Hall of Fame (in four Groups defined by Cooperstown election rules) and they are ranking all HOM members (in nine groups defined by primary fielding position). The leftfield election is underway with CF, RF, and Pitcher in the future.

Every three-week cycle includes Discussion, Ballot (polls open), and Results threads.

Check it out. The best portal to the 2008 projects is the official archives. Hall of Merit archives (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/archives/) (directory)

For example, in that directory these are the six 2008 threads that pertain to Hardy Richardson and other 1876-1943 candidates or other primary 2Bmen.
June [2008
Second Base]
* Election Results: Top Keystone Sackers…Collins, Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, Gehringer and Robinson! Posted: June 22, 2008 at 06:20 PM

* Ranking the Hall of Merit by Position: Second Basemen Ballot Posted: June 08, 2008 at 03:33 PM

* Ranking the Hall of Merit Second Basemen - Discussion Posted: June 01, 2008 at 06:03 PM

. . .
February [2008
"Group 3"
Election Results, see March]

* Ballot Thread: Players Not in the Hall of Fame: Group 3 (career started before 1943) Posted: February 17, 2008 at 04:25 PM

* Ranking Hall of Merit Players Not in the Hall of Fame: Group 3 (career started before 1943) Posted: February 10, 2008 at 03:01 PM

[JDD]

Jack Beckley, 1B (1888-1907) - 3rd Year
Cupid Childs, 2B (1888, 1890-1901) - 9th Year
Lave Cross, 3B (1887-1907) - 3rd Year
George Davis, SS (1890-1909) - 1st Year
Hugh Duffy, CF/OF (1888-1901, 1904-1906) - 4th Year
Hughie Jennings, SS (1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912) - 1st Year
Joe Kelley, LF (1891-1906, 1908) - 2nd Year
Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 6th Year
Bobby Lowe, 2B (1890-1907) - 3rd Year
Deacon McGuire, C (1884-1888, 1890-1908, 1910, 1912) - 2nd Year
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892) - 14th Year
Jimmy Ryan, CF (1885-1903) - 7th Year
Mike Tiernan, RF (1887-1899) - 10th Year
George Van Haltren, CF (1887-1903) - 7th Year
Mickey Welch, SP (1880-1892) - 14th Year

[Paul Wendt]

This year, no slip of the brain for Joe Kelley but it is likely that I will vote for him after 1915.

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
George Davis
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Charley Jones
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

At this point newcomer George Davis and the oldgoers at the end of the alphabet represent the top third of my ballot (bold). Spalding and Start survive from my first ballot (vote for ten). Inverse alphabetical order would be a silly ranking but I could live with it except for Davis!

[BlueBlood]

Collins and McGinnity are replaced with newcomers Davis and Jennings.

1. Beckley
2. Childs
3. Davis
4. Duffy
5. Jennings
6. McCormick
7. Pike
8. Richardson
9. Spalding
10. Start
11. Sutton
12. Van Haltren

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Fourteen (1901 onward) - Joe Start
Thirteen (1902 onward) - Hardy Richardson
Nine (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Nine (1905 and 1907-1914) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Eight (1901, 1908-1914) - Al Spalding
Seven (1908 onward) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
Four (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Three (1912) - Jake Beckley
One (1914) - George Davis, Hughie Jennings

[philkid3]

Jake Beckley - Despite coming just minutes away from election last time, I'm really not optimistic for his election any time soon.


Looks like he's going to be my only vote who actually makes it in.

Richardson's close, someone needs to come in and vote for him.

[MVP31]

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
George Davis
Hugh Duffy
Hughie Jennings
Charley Jones
Fielder Jones
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Walsh
John McGraw

[Paul Wendt]

Looks like he's going to be my only vote who actually makes it in.
George Davis is one of those who "should" be unanimous and you are among the overwhelming majority in his bandwagon. :applaud:

[philkid3]

George Davis is one of those who "should" be unanimous and you are among the overwhelming majority in his bandwagon. :applaud:

Ha

Totally overlooked that. Guess I meant "only one of my votes that wasn't obvious already." :D

[Paul Wendt]

With 3356 innings at ERA+ 92,
Chick Fraser is the innings leader among pitchers who have no entry in the Neyer & James Guide to Pitchers, a reference book full of short entries, and also among pitchers who fall below the Top 1000 by ERA+ (see career leaders at baseball-reference).

Fraser peaked at the right time to be one of the NL stars targeted by the American League. After one season with the Athletics he chicked out under the legal threats from the Phillies and returned to that team. There he pitched about as poorly as one can do without losing the job.

[DoubleX]

Just to review, here's the list I have for the next election (which might not be up for a few days as my internet access is limited):

Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith - Age Rule
Harry Howell
Addie Joss - 1500 IP Rule/Early Death Rule
Willie Keeler
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

These guys are also eligible but likely won't be on the ballot:

Ed Abbaticchio - 3000 AB Rule
Tom Jones - 3000 AB Rule
Ed Killian - 1500 IP Rule
George Stone - 3000 AB Rule

I'm also still undecided on reducing voting from 15 to 10 after next year. Feedback on that is appreciated.

[Freakshow]

These guys are also eligible but likely won't be on the ballot:

George Stone - 3000 AB Rule

I'm also still undecided on reducing voting from 15 to 10 after next year. Feedback on that is appreciated.
Stone and his 143 OPS+ should be on the ballot. This link is to his minor league record (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=stone-003geo).

My vote: keep the limit at 15.
Actually, there shouldn't be any limit. But if you establish a maximum number of votes there should also be specified a minimum number of votes as well.

[gman5431]

I voted for none. Already too many marginal players in the HOF. After all it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of VERY GOOD.

G Man

[Freakshow]

I voted for none. Already too many marginal players in the HOF. After all it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of VERY GOOD.

G Man
The product of deep analysis, I'm sure. :rolleyes::noidea

[DoubleX]

I voted for none. Already too many marginal players in the HOF. After all it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of VERY GOOD.

G Man

You must be for a really small Hall if you don't feel that at least George Davis doesn't belong, especially in a 1915 context. Plus, the Hall's standards are self-defining, and based on the standards of this Hall, Davis easily fits in, and is perhaps an upper tier player at this point.

[Brad Harris]

I voted for none. Already too many marginal players in the HOF. After all it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of VERY GOOD.

G Man

Whatever that means.

[gman5431]

Whatever that means.

It means there are already a handful of players in the HOF who are marginal HOFers at best. I do have higher standards for HOFers. I think mariginal players should be reserved for team's HOFs. HOF should be for the legends.

G Man

[philkid3]

It means there are already a handful of players in the HOF who are marginal HOFers at best. I do have higher standards for HOFers. I think mariginal players should be reserved for team's HOFs. HOF should be for the legends.

G Man

Which of them do you call marginal, and why is George Davis not a Hall of Famer?

[philkid3]

Just to review, here's the list I have for the next election (which might not be up for a few days as my internet access is limited):

Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith - Age Rule
Harry Howell
Addie Joss - 1500 IP Rule/Early Death Rule
Willie Keeler
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

I'm also still undecided on reducing voting from 15 to 10 after next year. Feedback on that is appreciated.

Planning on adding Flick and Keeler to my ballot, and I'm leaning towards Waddell and Willis. I'm going to probably going to vote for Joss eventually, but at first I'm going to likely wait on Joss and listen to arguments and do some thoughts on how I feel about the issue myself. This, though, is totally off the top of my head. I'll do the research (and listen to the arguments) more when this ballot is over.


I don't have a vote for ballot reduction until after the next set of ballots, but I lean towards dropping it to 10.

[jjpm74]

So how much longer until someone posts a ballot less Beckley to knock him out of contention should we start a pool? :shhh:

[jjpm74]

It means there are already a handful of players in the HOF who are marginal HOFers at best. I do have higher standards for HOFers. I think mariginal players should be reserved for team's HOFs. HOF should be for the legends.

G Man

Did you look at this year's ballot before making this decision or did you just skip straight to the bottom? George Davis is an inner circle 1st tier HOFer.

[philkid3]

So I guess Richardson's not getting in.

:/

[BlueBlood]

So how much longer until someone posts a ballot less Beckley to knock him out of contention should we start a pool? :shhh:

Well, even after that ballot, Beckley will stay afloat. As usual. But after AG2004 posts his at the last minute...:banghead::banghead:

I'm really hoping one gets elected this round. I'm carrying 12 on my ballot and am fond of 4 from the 1915 class.

[DoubleX]

Well, even after that ballot, Beckley will stay afloat. As usual. But after AG2004 posts his at the last minute...:banghead::banghead:

Yeah, AG hasn't voted yet. Still, Beckley can absorb one more non-vote and still make it. So assuming AG votes to form, the question is whether anyone else will vote and whether they will include Beckley. Another non-vote for Beckley plus AG's vote would pretty much be it for him.

Things were looking good but gman's blank ballot changed things. Don't quite get how one could not vote for at least George Davis, even if you're a small Hall guy. I also think people should use the standards of the Hall as their benchmark, and it's hard to argue that Davis doesn't fit well within the standards of this Hall.

[jjpm74]

Slightly OT, but I'm REALLY hoping the ballot doesn't go down to 10. If it does,
it's going to force people to leave members off their ballots that they support. Given how challenging it's been to get people to vote for anyone who isn't a no-brainer, it could lead to many years where no one is elected in a row. :twocents:

[jjpm74]

Well, even after that ballot, Beckley will stay afloat. As usual. But after AG2004 posts his at the last minute...:banghead::banghead:


Maybe he supports Spalding and if so, he could be the guy to push Spalding over the hump. It all evens out in the end. ;)

[jjpm74]

Just to review, here's the list I have for the next election (which might not be up for a few days as my internet access is limited):

Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith - Age Rule
Harry Howell
Addie Joss - 1500 IP Rule/Early Death Rule
Willie Keeler
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

These guys are also eligible but likely won't be on the ballot:

Ed Abbaticchio - 3000 AB Rule
Tom Jones - 3000 AB Rule
Ed Killian - 1500 IP Rule
George Stone - 3000 AB Rule

I'm also still undecided on reducing voting from 15 to 10 after next year. Feedback on that is appreciated.

George Stone was an amazing player and deserves to be on the ballot. Ed Abbatcchio was the 1st Italian American baseball player and a colorful character. While I probably wouldn't vote for either one of them, both deserve a spot on next year's ballot, IMO.

[BlueBlood]

Stone definitely needs to be on the ballot. Warrants discussion and makes for a bit of the always fun "What will his percent be?" game.

[DoubleX]

George Stone was an amazing player and deserves to be on the ballot. Ed Abbatcchio was the 1st Italian American baseball player and a colorful character. While I probably wouldn't vote for either one of them, both deserve a spot on next year's ballot, IMO.

I meant to include Stone, that was an accident. I don't think I'll be including Abbaticchio though. Even by the standards of the day, his career was pretty short, and while he was a pretty decent player, he didn't really stand out to overcome the very short career deficiency. Like I said earlier, if a player is trying to get on the ballot by virtue of meeting a minimum requirement, I will apply extra scrutiny. In this case, Abbaticchio doesn't measure up, IMO. If Jimmy Williams can't attract more than just 2 votes, I see no reason to think Abbatichhio merits inclusion as he is quite a distance behind Williams, IMO.

[jjpm74]

I meant to include Stone, that was an accident. I don't think I'll be including Abbaticchio though. Even by the standards of the day, his career was pretty short, and while he was a pretty decent player, he didn't really stand out to overcome the very short career deficiency. Like I said earlier, if a player is trying to get on the ballot by virtue of meeting a minimum requirement, I will apply extra scrutiny. In this case, Abbaticchio doesn't measure up, IMO. If Jimmy Williams can't attract more than just 2 votes, I see no reason to think Abbatichhio merits inclusion as he is quite a distance behind Williams, IMO.

Fair enough! As he is a relative of mine I felt compelled to champion his cause, but I agree that his career didn't amount to much. :D

[AG2004]

My ballot

Cupid Childs
George Davis
Hugh Duffy
Hughie Jennings
Charley Jones
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

[DoubleX]

Well that should knock Beckley out. AG's non-vote came in as expected, but someone else nixed Beckley as well. I'm not optimistic for his chances next year as the new class is pretty loaded and we'll still have 9 or 10 (depending on Spalding) of the original class left, meaning that Beckley could be squeezed from some ballots.

For the record, I am again leaning towards keeping it at 15 as the larger ballot does help safeguard against the problems of having a smaller talent pool, such as the damage that can be inflicted by one blank ballot (as happened here). I'm not going to remove that option though, I just hope that when people use that option, they've given the candidates a lot of thought and are prepared to defend their position.

[Paul Wendt]

The nays have it in the last few days, not only one voter and not only Beckley. George Davis slumped from 95% to 85% with three late nays. Beckley, Richardson, Spalding, and Van Haltren all dropped more than a single "vote for none" explains. Judging from the percentages I estimate that everyone named here earned about 4 of the last 7 votes.

[dgarza]

Well that should knock Beckley out. I was hoping to get Beckley in. If not Beckley, then at least Spalding. But now they've both been shot down.

[leecemark]

--Beckley I think is a virtual lock to eventually make it, although 1915 will be a tough yeat for him to gain support in. For Spaulding its his last chance though and it would be a shame if we missed him - especially after being so close for so long. I'll make a longer pitch for him when 1915 goes up, but please nobody vote against him without at least taking a hard look at his qualifications. Spaulding was BY FAR the best pitcher of the 1870s. His peak (240 wins and a 142 ERA+ in 5 years) is a match for all but the real titans of pitching history. Definately better than several guys we have elected already.
--I expect we'll see a few extra votes for the first generation players in their "last chance" election. Spaulding, Sutton, McVey and Richardson are already on my ballot. I'll take a hard look at Lip Pike and possibly reinstate Joe Start. If anybody wants to make a pitch for him or any other last chancer this is probably the place to do it. I'm not sure how much reading of the comments some voting do in the active threads before casting their ballot.
--Spaulding has enough non-playing credit I think he is at least a VC lock if we don't get him in the regular elections. Start and Pike may get more consideration for their 1860s play in the VC than they have here (they both need plenty of it to qualify for me). McVey has a couple pre-NA seasons at a high level and perhaps some post-NL credit for his work as a player-manager in California. Sutton and Richardson either make it on their official records or not at all for me. Maybe that means Ezra should be gettoing some extra attention in 1915. He WAS the best thirdbaseman of the first 30 years of major league baseball and that seems deserving to me.

[jjpm74]

I can't believe Davis struggled this much just to get elected. He really should have been a no brainer here.

I propose that we either eliminate the (none) option or require that any person casting an outlier ballot provide a logical reason for casting said ballot that fits the parameters of who we've elected to this point. We're now 14 (soon to be 15) cycles into this and at this point in the project where we already have set benchmarks established we shouldn't still be getting people trying to "undo past mistakes" or force a small hall on us. The small hall argument may have had some credence in the 1905 election but 10 cycles later no longer seems to fit as a reasonable reason to cast a block vote. :twocents:

[jjpm74]

--Beckley I think is a virtual lock to eventually make it, although 1915 will be a tough yeat for him to gain support in. For Spaulding its his last chance though and it would be a shame if we missed him - especially after being so close for so long. I'll make a longer pitch for him when 1915 goes up, but please nobody vote against him without at least taking a hard look at his qualifications. Spaulding was BY FAR the best pitcher of the 1870s. His peak (240 wins and a 142 ERA+ in 5 years) is a match for all but the real titans of pitching history. Definately better than several guys we have elected already.
--I expect we'll see a few extra votes for the first generation players in their "last chance" election. Spaulding, Sutton, McVey and Richardson are already on my ballot. I'll take a hard look at Lip Pike and possibly reinstate Joe Start. If anybody wants to make a pitch for him or any other last chancer this is probably the place to do it. I'm not sure how much reading of the comments some voting do in the active threads before casting their ballot.


In addition to being the best pitcher of his generation, Spalding was also one of the best hitters of his generation and an excellent fielder in an era where fielding was very important. As an all around candidate, he is the best of his generation that hasn't been elected.

[DoubleX]

--Beckley I think is a virtual lock to eventually make it, although 1915 will be a tough yeat for him to gain support in. For Spaulding its his last chance though and it would be a shame if we missed him - especially after being so close for so long. I'll make a longer pitch for him when 1915 goes up, but please nobody vote against him without at least taking a hard look at his qualifications. Spaulding was BY FAR the best pitcher of the 1870s. His peak (240 wins and a 142 ERA+ in 5 years) is a match for all but the real titans of pitching history. Definately better than several guys we have elected already.
--I expect we'll see a few extra votes for the first generation players in their "last chance" election. Spaulding, Sutton, McVey and Richardson are already on my ballot. I'll take a hard look at Lip Pike and possibly reinstate Joe Start. If anybody wants to make a pitch for him or any other last chancer this is probably the place to do it. I'm not sure how much reading of the comments some voting do in the active threads before casting their ballot.
--Spaulding has enough non-playing credit I think he is at least a VC lock if we don't get him in the regular elections. Start and Pike may get more consideration for their 1860s play in the VC than they have here (they both need plenty of it to qualify for me). McVey has a couple pre-NA seasons at a high level and perhaps some post-NL credit for his work as a player-manager in California. Sutton and Richardson either make it on their official records or not at all for me. Maybe that means Ezra should be gettoing some extra attention in 1915. He WAS the best thirdbaseman of the first 30 years of major league baseball and that seems deserving to me.

It looks good for Beckley to eventually make it, but he may have to take a back seat for the next couple of elections. 1915, while perhaps not the most impressive at the very top, is probably the deepest class we've had since 1901. There are a lot of guys around that line that will get attention. 1916 has Cy Young and Bill Dahlen, but 1917-1919 appear to be much weaker, with Frank Chance in 1919 and Jimmy Sheckard in 1918 seeming to be the best during those years (unless I missed someone), so Beckley's chance will probably come in that window.

It will probably please you to know that I will likely try to find room for Spalding next year. I still don't feel particularly strong about him, but I don't really object to his election. So in his last year of eligibility I will try to vote for him as deference to his supporters, instead of essentially voting against him by a non-vote.

Speaking of non-votes, I hope voters realize that when they do not vote for someone they are voting against them.

And I've officially decided, we'll stay at 15 votes. If nothing else, I can already picture some people missing the change and me having to track them down to ask them to shorten their ballot.

[DoubleX]

JJPM, I noticed you voted for Dinneen. Any particular reason? I ask because if you feel he's worthy, I'd think you'd be be hardpressed to not vote for Waddell, Joss, Willis, Griffith, and Leever.

[jjpm74]

JJPM, I noticed you voted for Dinneen. Any particular reason? I ask because if you feel he's worthy, I'd think you'd be be hardpressed to not vote for Waddell, Joss, Willis, Griffith, and Leever.

I voted for Dinneen because he had an impressive peak on some very bad teams. All of the pitchers you just mentioned are in my consideration set.

[Paul Wendt]

It looks good for Beckley to eventually make it, but he may have to take a back seat for the next couple of elections. 1915, while perhaps not the most impressive at the very top, is probably the deepest class we've had since 1901. There are a lot of guys around that line that will get attention. 1916 has Cy Young and Bill Dahlen, but 1917-1919 appear to be much weaker, with Frank Chance in 1919 and Jimmy Sheckard in 1918 seeming to be the best during those years (unless I missed someone), so Beckley's chance will probably come in that window.
Fred Clifford Clarke
Born: October 3, 1872, Winterset, IA

5 for 5 in his NL debut, what a peak!
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=112352

[DoubleX]

I voted for Dinneen because he had an impressive peak on some very bad teams. All of the pitchers you just mentioned are in my consideration set.

He has a nice peak, but it's not that impressive, IMO. A 126.6 ERA+ in his peak 5 years, but outside those 5 years, he only had 1 other season above 100 ERA+. Waddell and Joss both have a higher career ERA+ than Dinneen's peak. Willis didn't string together 5 straight years like Dinneen, but reached greater heights in his career in general, including 3 seasons over 150, whereas Dinneen's career high was 134. Willis finished with a 118 ERA+ (compared to 107 for Dinneen). Griffith didn't quite eat innings like the others, but his best 5 consecutive year peak ERA+ was 140.4, he had 5 other seasons with over 100 ERA+, and finished with a 121 ERA+, so to me he's a better candidate than Dinneen as well. Leever is probably the easiest to poke a hole in because he pitched less innings, significantly so in some years, though is ERA+ was generally much better.

Fred Clifford Clarke
Born: October 3, 1872, Winterset, IA

5 for 5 in his NL debut, what a peak!
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=112352

That's right, Clarke will be eligible in 1918, when he's 45.